Second Sight

It is easier to maintain that we have free will than it is to demonstrate
with certainty that any decision which we make is actually free. Behind it
lies a vast hinterland of unconscious causes: uncritical assumptions,
forgotten memories, genetic influences, values absorbed - some in infancy,
the persuasive power of the culture or subculture within which we live. Even
when we are confident that a decision is free we can still be aware of
multiple, and perhaps less worthy, motivations.

I will have reason to return to aspects of this difficult question on other
occasions, but here I want to look at a particular feature about which we
are learning more from day to day. Whatever our decisions, the brain is
involved. It is the vehicle or medium through which we work. The rapid
developments in different ways to scan the brain are now providing methods
of diagnosis and analysis of how parts of the brain function and
interrelate. But we are only as yet on the borders of understanding how such
an extraordinarily complex organ works.

A particularly interesting piece of work has recently been done on the brain
structure of male and female homosexuals. Hitherto experiments in different
brain activity have been usually done by measuring it in response to various
stimuli. These do provide information but they lack the uncontaminated
objective information which is required. Ivanka Savic and Per Lindström at
the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm have now made good progress in this
field.

Twenty-five heterosexuals and 20 homosexuals from each gender underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans which display different internal structures. Heterosexual men and homosexual women proved to have asymmetrical brains with the right hemisphere slightly enlarged. Homosexual men and heterosexual women had symmetrical brains. For further tests, positron emission tomography (PET) which shows functional processes was used to measure blood flow to the amygdala, which plays a central role in the emotions. By mapping the connections between the amygdala and other brain locations it was detected that in heterosexual men and homosexual women the signals mainly passed to regions which triggered action. By contrast, signals from heterosexual women and homosexual men preferred regions associated with mood and anxiety.

This is significant because women are three times as likely than men to
suffer from mood disorders and depression. Increased rates are present in
homosexual men too, but in this case it is difficult to separate the effects
of negative social pressures from biological brain processes. So that
question, although suggestive, remains open.

Another question which remains open is whether these different structures
and processes are inherited or a result of levels of exposure to hormones in
the womb (which could also be indirectly genetic). But what is not open to
question, provided that similar studies confirm these phenomena, is that
brain differences are strongly associated with sexual orientation. This does
not exclude environmental factors external to the womb playing some part.
And I stress here that more studies are needed not only to replicate the
experiment but to apply its methodology to, for instance, bisexuals, or to
those whose orientation only becomes a factor when they are confined to
same-sex company.

Can sexual orientation be changed? This biological difference suggests not,
and the existing research into attempts to change give very little
encouragement that this can in general be so. And arguably they may not be
desirable if they set up a tension between a biologically based tendency and
an unreachable aspiration.

The Catechism describes the homosexual orientation as ³intrinsically
disordered² (2357ff). In the absence of biological knowledge at the time of
drafting it was of course described only as a psychological condition. One
has to question in what respects an inclination harmonised with brain
structure should be described as intrinsically disordered. Its incidence may
be statistically abnormal, but then so is having red hair.

One would expect that homosexuality would gradually breed itself out of society, but it clearly hasn¹t. One theoretical suggestion, based on computer modelling (Andrew Campario, Padua University) is that a combination of genes, one of which at least would need to be on the X (female) chromosome, could produce a small but permanent proportion of homosexuals.

Does this presence of the homosexual tendency have any benefit for society?

Leaving aside some cultures which have found this to be so, the answer is
complex because social prejudice can distort homosexual behaviour. I would
speculate that a homosexual orientation in the caring professions (and I
would include the priesthood) could have advantages. And many of us know
stable homosexual relationships which clearly make valuable contributions.
The part that homosexuals have contributed to the artistic and creative
aspects of our culture is immense. I would argue that this is because of,
and not in spite of, their orientation.

Civil Partnerships, in my view, confuse the issue. There is a strong case
for extending the tax benefits and financial security they offer to a wider
range of those who are in interdependent relationships  – elderly sisters who
share a household, for instance, or a permanent carer of an elderly
relative. To make these benefits dependent only on presumed sexual
orientation, apart from the clear injustice of the discrimination,
reinforces the idea that homosexuals are a group on the margins of society
and not truly part of it.

I am aware that any questions concerning homosexuality can provoke emotional responses. But one of the purposes of this column is to separate emotions from clear thinking, and so get nearer to the truth. In a previous column, on natural law, I described how growing knowledge of nature could require us to modify our conclusions. So here is an opportunity to comment on this, and to give us the benefits of your thoughts on the Church’s attitude towards homosexuality.

Owing to an error in deleting some obscene spam, I have inadvertently deleted a number of valuable comments (particularly those related to the Marshall interview). If your comment is missing (bottom of STOP PRESS page) it would be helpful if you could find the time to send a replacement.

Quentin

We have evolved to act on first impressions: without them we might have had no second impressions.

It has been estimated that we make thousands of unconscious judgments within the first moments of meeting. Many are wrong.

It is well established that, having formed a first impression, we tend to confirm it by attending to supporting evidence and by ignoring contradictory evidence.

A man who tells you that he always goes by first impressions, is telling you that he is a bad judge of character.

It may be unfair to judge someone’s future behaviour by their past behaviour but it is the best, and often the only, evidence available. You will be right far more often than wrong.

(For the interview with Professor Marshall go to STOP PRESS)

Science and Faith, July 18

In Pope John Paul II’s impressive encyclical Veritatis Splendor (1993) he
teaches that there are acts which are always wrong in themselves,
“independently of circumstances”. And among the examples he quotes from
Vatican II is “whatever violates the integrity of the human
person… such as physical and mental torture and attempts to coerce the
spirit…”
Discussing this with friends recently I was not surprised to be met by the
“ticking bomb” example. Imagine a situation in which your family are locked
in a cellar with a ticking bomb, which is due to detonate in a quarter of an
hour. You have captured the villain who has arranged this, but he refuses to
give you the combination of the lock which will allow you to open the door.
Assuming there is no other way in the time available, would you be justified
in torturing him to get the information, or would you pass the quarter hour
reading Veritatis Splendor? And there is a third answer: you might agree
that torture was wrong but be prepared to carry it out.
Everyone has to answer those questions for themselves. But my friends argued
this way: this villain is an aggressor and you would be perfectly entitled
to kill him in your family’s defence if that would do any good (for
instance if he were guarding the door with a lethal weapon). But to torture
him is less grave than killing him and it is the only option left with a
hope of success. So ample justification is there.
This, of course, is an extreme example for debating purposes but it does
appear to clash with the Council’s “independently of circumstances”. In real
life we are more likely to be thinking of people whom we are morally certain
are terrorists (threatening our families) and who hold information about
other terrorists which they are not prepared to divulge.
There are important real-life issues. It may that the victim has not himself
been guilty of colluding in terrorism; he may not have the required
information; the information he is forced to give may be inaccurate. The
authorities who authorise the torture, or turn a blind eye to it, may do
more harm to their claim to democratic freedom and the rule of law than any
benefit which results. Many argue against torture for such practical
reasons.
But I think that the late Pope is digging deeper. What he is saying is that
torture dehumanises the victim. In effect it has to break down the victim¹s
personhood, by removing his human freedom to choose, and reducing him to
forced action through pain and fear of pain. The phrases “violate the human
person” and “coerce the spirit” indicate this.
Now let’s look at history. The British Medical Journal of June 28 reported
on a study conducted by Physicians for Human Rights. They studied 11
detainees held in American facilities in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantánamo
Bay. None had been charged with any crime.
The methods used to bring about “excruciating pain, terror, humiliation, and
shame for months on end” were various. “Suspension, stress positions,
routine isolation, sleep deprivation with sense bombardment and extreme
temperatures, sexual humiliation and forced nakedness, electric shock,
beatings, threats to life and families” are among the methods reported,
either as authorised or countenanced. It provides a general idea.
Major General Taguma, who led the investigation of the scandal at Abu
Ghraib, commented on the indiscriminate flouting of the UN Convention
against Torture, and said: “There is no longer any doubt as to whether the
current administration has committed war crimes. The only question is
whether those who ordered the use of torture will be held to account.”
There were only 11 detainees in the study, each of whose cases had to be
investigated over two days, and the medical records provided by the
interrogators examined. But other generalised evidence suggests that some or
all of these practices were routinely used.
In this report there was no suggestion that so-called truth drugs were
employed. There are a variety of substances which are alleged to have the
capacity to ensure that all is revealed. Here there need be no external
symptoms; indeed the victim might not even recall what had happened. At
present they have a reputation for unreliability. One would imagine that if
they did the intended job there would have been no need for the physical
abuse of alleged terrorists.
But science advances, and effective drugs may well be developed in the
future. It would be interesting to know if secret research work is being
done in this country, or any other. And, as we learn more and more about the
brain, it is quite possible that ways will be discovered to exercise direct
control over brain functions, which might have the same effect. All these
would dehumanise, and so fall under the Council’s stricture.
Meanwhile we are left with the question: how far would we personally go to
extract information which we are confident will save the lives of innocent
people? Remember the villain who locked up your loved ones with a ticking
bomb. If you are a newcomer to this blog, there’s plenty of interest here if you follow down through the posts, or have a look at the STOP PRESS page. You don’t have to make a comment to register for the blog, but registration enables me to let you know about interesting new material

Bureaucrats understand their function, but they do not understand the purpose of their function.

For the bureaucrat ‘I think therefore I am’ becomes ‘I refuse therefore I am’.

It is only necessary to move from market forces to a bureaucracy to understand how little work can be accomplished in a single day.

Thrust your status at the bureaucrat, and latent fires of generations of disadvantage will leap into flame.

Open a transaction with a bureaucrat with the phrase ‘I wonder if you could possibly help me.’ You may give him the opportunity, if only momentarily, of actually contributing to human welfare. He may enjoy the novel experience, and wish to repeat it.

Every fortnight I have the stimulating pleasure of leading a group on
philosophy, under the auspices of the University of the Third Age. Our range
is wide but, over the years, we have returned time and again to questions of
morality. Given the diversity of backgrounds –­ Catholic, Jewish, Muslim and
agnostic –­­ you might think that we had so little in common that serious and
probing debate would be pointless. On the contrary. Although we often agree
to disagree on particular questions we share fundamental principles in
common, and we are always ready to give reasons for the conclusions we
defend.

This is what is known as the natural law in action.

The protagonist of natural law in the western tradition is Thomas Aquinas.
Even the secular philosophers who write about the concept, and maintain
their variations, have Aquinas on their shoulder. And behind him stands
Aristotle.

The first principle is that practical reason obliges us to follow the good
and avoid the evil. We may be wholly mistaken about what constitutes the
good in a given instance, but that is what reason obliges us to follow.
However, we achieve our basic understanding of the good through our
understanding of nature, because acting in accordance with nature ensures
that we are directed at the right target: that is, we flourish.

A simple example is provided by the dog. The nature of the dog, among other
things, is to be active, to give and receive affection, and to relate
closely to human beings. (We might note here that some key characteristics
of this nature have come about through evolving from the wild, ancestral,
species.) If we treat a dog in accord with its nature, it flourishes. If
not, not.

In a recent column, I looked at how we could discover the role of
fatherhood through looking at the needs of human nature. Human nature is
qualitatively more complex because it is a fusion of animal nature and
spiritual nature. That is, it involves elements such as intelligence, free
will and moral responsibility. We often speak of two natures –­ the lower
nature and the higher nature ­– but this is just a convenience for discussion
because the two interpenetrate in ways we cannot completely understand.

Aquinas speaks of a hierarchy in our grasp of what human nature requires to
flourish. There are major constituents such as justice, responsibility to
neighbour, right to life and conscience and so forth. These are recognisable
by all. But as we move down the hierarchy towards more detailed application
of these major principles so there is greater and greater room for
disagreement. This can come about because our understanding of human nature
and circumstance inevitably varies at the more detailed level, and so we
arrive at different conclusions. Nevertheless, the UN was able to proclaim
an agreed code of human rights, and call it “universal”. Such declarations
implicitly stem from natural law.

More importantly, grasp of natural law can vary because of ill-will and bad
habits. We know that it can also be distorted through culture. Decent,
commonsense people (such as many in my group) broadly accept our current
abortion laws; we live in an abortion culture, and those out of line are
considered indoctrinated or eccentric. So, for such reasons, deliberate or
indeliberate, we may be blinded to what natural law demands.

Can natural law change? Certainly our knowledge of it can. For instance, a
mistaken understanding of embryological development, which science corrected
in the 19th century, led to a change in the status of abortion. And
perception can change. The deeper understanding of conscience which led
Vatican II to accept the fundamental human right to free choice of religion
was an unacknowledged reversal of a long-standing Church teaching.

Circumstances can change, too. The general proposition that cannibalism is
always wrong might be questioned should a group find themselves abandoned in
a remote area and without food after, say, an air crash in which one of the
party had been killed. In America in the 1880s the average woman gave birth
to about seven children. And this was necessary to maintain the population
because child mortality meant that only two or three children would survive
to procreate. Today such an average birthrate would lead over a few
generations to an astronomical increase in population. Do the maths. Such
examples remind us that we cannot invariably generalise about what is needed
for humans to flourish.

So far my description has been couched in terms of unaided human reason.
Consequently we can debate the application of morals in the public forum.
And it does not follow that atheists can have no moral sense. In fact their
attacks on religion are often made in moral terms. They may have difficulty
in explaining the source of moral obligation, but that is not the same as
lacking it. Christianity, through St Paul, describes it as a law written by
God in men’s hearts. And indeed we hold that the imperatives of the natural
law fundamentally arise from the fact that God created our nature.

The Church goes further, declaring that she has a special competence to
interpret the natural law with an understanding illuminated and enriched by
Revelation. Undoubtedly the concept of what it means to flourish is
marvellously extended when human nature is understood as elevated by
redemption, and created for an eternal destiny. But there remains a need to
demonstrate the link between natural law as open to reason and its deeper
application. For example, while natural law can make a very strong case for
monogamous marriage, it has a higher imperative derived from Christ’s
declaration that monogamous marriage was intended for the human race from
the beginning. For the believer, but not the sceptic, the case is closed.

The need to demonstrate this link is particularly great when a moral
teaching which allows of no exceptions is declared. Sadly there have been
occasions where accepted doctrines have needed to be modified or abrogated.
Moving beyond the limits of human reason, where Revelation gives no certain
mandate, can be a hostage to fortune.